Editorial: Sotomayor deserves a fair, detailed hearing

Thursday

May 28, 2009 at 12:01 AMMay 28, 2009 at 1:52 AM

Now that President Obama has named Sonia Sotomayor his nominee for the Supreme Court, the shouting match can begin in earnest. As always, we'd prefer that the confirmation process for the high court be a nuanced process full of reasoned debate rather than bumper sticker slogans and name-calling. Alas, this is the real world, so merited or not, expect some noise.

Now that President Obama has named Sonia Sotomayor his nominee for the Supreme Court, the shouting match can begin in earnest.

As always, we'd prefer that the confirmation process for the high court be a nuanced process full of reasoned debate rather than bumper sticker slogans and name-calling. Alas, this is the real world, so merited or not, expect some noise.

With an admittedly limited view of Sotomayor after her first two days in the spotlight, we can say this: Both the length and breadth of experience she has speak positively of her - more time spent as a U.S. appellate judge than anyone currently on the court had when named to the bench, with time spent in federal trial court, in private practice and as a prosecutor.

Sotomayor certainly offers a compelling personal story, the kind of up-by-her-bootstraps, American dream narrative that's likely to draw support. She grew up poor in the Brooklyn projects, her widowed mother often working two jobs to support the family and make payments on the only encyclopedias in the neighborhood. At age 8 she was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. She was inspired to pursue a career in the law watching "Perry Mason" on TV, and ultimately received degrees from Princeton and Yale. That she issued the ruling that effectively ended the 1994-95 baseball labor dispute is all the more likely to endear her to ordinary folks.

Moreover, her selection satisfies a couple of key constituencies for Obama, giving the court a second female perspective and solidifying support from Hispanics. We might add that, if confirmed, she would be the sixth Roman Catholic justice on the nine-member Supreme Court, though religious affiliation is not necessarily a predictor of future direction.

Early but detailed reports of her judicial work peg the nominee as a judge who crafts narrow opinions that are exhaustively researched. Many of her rulings seem to lean to the left politically, but colleagues and supporters say her interpretations are based on the law as it is written.

Those who would paint her as a knee-jerk liberal justice rewriting laws to support a left-wing worldview would be ignoring the ruling she issued declaring as unconstitutional a law that forbade religious displays in a city park in upstate New York. And the one rejecting a pro-choice group's efforts to overturn the Bush administration's policy of denying U.S. funding to overseas clinics performing or sanctioning abortions. And several other pro-business, pro-prosecution, anti-lawsuit decisions. That may not suggest she'd be a frequent swing vote, but it does indicate she's not some rubber-stamp for the left.

Unless some skeleton comes marching out of the closet, the nominee almost always becomes the justice, especially likely in this case given the significant Democratic majority in the Senate. This page has long supported giving presidents of both parties a wide berth in their Supreme Court selections. Essentially voters have endorsed the philosophy and priorities of the person they've chosen to occupy the White House; to the victor go the spoils.

That said, there are naturally going to be questions about some of Sotomayor's rulings and past statements. There ought to be. In fact we'd like to hear her responses to some things her opponents have already seized upon as concerns. Among those:

- A 2001 speech in which she suggested that as a Hispanic woman on the bench her inherent biases from her life experiences might color her interpretation of facts, much as she might try to be impartial, as do any other judge's gender, ethnicity and personal background;

- Her part in a brief, three-judge ruling that was appealed to the high court, in which the panel said the city of New Haven, Conn., didn't violate anti-discrimination law when it tossed out the results of a promotion exam for firefighters because not enough minorities achieved scores worthy of promotion;

- Her 2005 remarks to Duke law students, from which a brief snippet appearing on YouTube shows her saying in a lighthearted moment that the "court of appeals is where policy is made." True, it's where a great deal of law is decided, with thousands of cases getting their final ruling there and only 80 or so each year moving ahead to the Supreme Court, but we'd still like to hear what exactly she meant rather than relying on an out-of-context soundbite.

A thorough examination of these and other concerns is not unreasonable - in fact, it should be mandatory for someone getting a lifetime appointment to the court - but so far we've seen no cause for much foot-dragging in the Senate. The three-month timetable for hearings and deliberation is roughly what the last four justices named to the court enjoyed. No doubt it will be a spirited debate, but let's hope it will also be conducted with some depth and dignity.

Peoria Journal Star

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.